R.Young wrote:
So is that the scanner then? I guess high dpi on a midrange scanner revolves less than a medium dpi on a high end scanner?
What was said before, and:
Something is wrong in that pipeline, but there are several possibilities. One is that the scanner design sucks, another that the scanner is damaged or out of calibration. Another common problem is film flatness. Did you have visible curvature when you scanned the film? Yet another possibility is wrong settings. You need to make sure to set the white balance, black and white point very accurately, so you don't lose data and don't throw away resolution.
I don't know that scanner, so I cannot comment on it.
Peter -- Thanks for the info and the kind offer to show me how it's done. Yes, I agree, the only scans I've seen of my images that I liked were those done professionally on drum scanners by technicians I felt were real artists in set-up and color correction. I used to get some good results from Super Color Lab in Hollywood, and these were mostly from 4x5 transparency film.
Besided buying the older "obsolete" drum scanner, you must need a dedicated older computer running Win 98, 2000 or XP/XP Pro, to use the proper software and drivers, right? I like the idea, but don't like the loss of office real estate for all these pieces. Perhaps you could describe more what you have, maybe a photo?
I am really interested in your approach and set-up, as you have very good results. If I continue playing with film, I might need to go your route -- plus, I have tons of 120/220 and 4x5 film and negs sitting here in boxes, needing to do something with! Of course, a 55 gallon burn-barrel (in another state) might be a simpler solution. He-he-he!
corposant -- Hmmm. I find these enhanced scans lacking in fine details, so I don't think I'll go to the economy scans, even though they would be cheaper. I also find less DR and ability to PP in the cheaper, high-compression jpgs. Yes, they will work for web size and fast proofing, but I try to shoot full rez, even if it is for my own enjoyment or testing. Otherwise, I'm really sure of the IQ of the images, and like to stay techicnally "on the ball" for assignments.
Otherwise, North Shore did a nice job and the color was decent. (Image size was between 10MB and 24MB, depending on film size and complexity of subject.) I suppose I need to backtrack and "never say never": I may get some of their economy scans done, just to see how they look!
Anyone else know of good, cheap, process/scan labs in the LA area?
Everything I post here is a budget scan. At the end of the year, I see how many 5 star photos I have and get those drum-scanned. In fact, I need to talk you, Peter, about that!
There's really no point in getting enhanced scans for all your photos with the intent to treat them like digital files. If you want to go to the pixel level on every picture you take, you should be shooting digital exclusively.
"There's really no point in getting enhanced scans for all your photos with the intent to treat them like digital files. If you want to go to the pixel level on every picture you take, you should be shooting digital exclusively. "
You're absolutely right, for most people, it's cost prohibitive to drum scan everything, and you wouldn't want to anyway.
Occasionally doing some film shots is very fun. I love my M3.
M3 with Zeiss Sonnar WO Portra 160
50cron rigid WO
I love film's tone, and color. They were developed and scan at my local Costco store. Price is good and scan size is decent (6-8M?). The only problem is they only do C-41, no BW. If I want more from 35mm, I certainly will use my digital camera.
R.Young wrote:
Thanks for the advice. I was quoted £48 for develop and scan two rolls of film here in London... So not sure whether to buy a scanner or just stop shooting film and use my 5d2. I certainly makes me appreciate just how convenient digital is!
what about trying a slide copying attachment for the 5dII?
Peter -- Of course! You are right, I wouldn't drum scan EVERY neg if I had a drum scanner. Maybe every fourth or fifth one would keep me busy and out of trouble! Or three or four per day. Ha-ha! (Still have to tape them in, right?)
Do you have a dedicated older Windows system computer to run the scans? Or can you use more modern Windows versions or Mac?
corposant -- The lower rez scans I've gotten have been frankly awful, especially from 35mm. The North Shore enhanced scans are almost acceptable for my viewing, evaluation and PP -- I really can't make decisions or judge the outcome until I see the fine details, then go back to the overall image.
I've been sort of hoping to get scans of 6x7 negs that can rival 30MP sensors, just beyond what I'm getting from the 1Ds2 and 5D2. Maybe that won't be possible, or at least not practical or cost effective.
Just so you know, I find the 21MP RAW files from 5D2 to be acceptable, but not stellar. What I've seen from the Nikon D800e looks like the beginning of decent imaging, but I'm not interested in buying back into Nikon -- I just off-loaded almost all I had after a couple year romance ended. Doubling the resolution of the 5D2 would probably be a very interesting camera to me, around 50MP.
I suppose 4x5 and 8x10 spoiled me early on! And I'll admit to being a little overly enthusiastic about the microscopic level of imaging. I remember limiting drum scans for wall murals to under 100MP, and that was more than ten years ago. So I have an idea how far this can go from an image quality standpoint.
zhangyue. you can get a C41 black and white, my local CVS will develop it. I feel sure it is not as good as the work done at most dedicated labs, but it works for fun. thanks
30Mpx? Hmmm, you could get a tech cam and a P40+. Good luck handholding that setup!
I think from a strictly consumer/fun standpoint, you're going to be disappointed if that's your benchmark. Don't let that stop you from posting here, though!
"Peter -- Of course! You are right, I wouldn't drum scan EVERY neg if I had a drum scanner. Maybe every fourth or fifth one would keep me busy and out of trouble! Or three or four per day. Ha-ha! (Still have to tape them in, right?)"
My personal scanning is an ongoing project that doesn't have a set schedule. Sort of whenever I have some free time. I've been going back through all the old Kodachromes and scanning anything that might have a future, and in fact, just sold six of those for office decoration to a law firm in Monterey. Having your own drum is definitely a luxury, but now I wouldn't have it any other way.
"Do you have a dedicated older Windows system computer to run the scans? Or can you use more modern Windows versions or Mac?"
For my scanner, the best scanning software was Trident 4.0, written by the same people who now do the ImagePrint RIP. The Mac version was always more capable in those days than the PC version, and while there are still some unresolved bugs - kind of what you expect for something they originally sold for $6K, it's still the best package out there but only runs on the old Mac OS 9.2.2. There are other software options but they are inferior in both features and ease of use.
Peter -- Kind of what I figured on the hardware/software scenario. Originally, the pro scanning was way to expensive for a single operator/photographer on a budget. These days it's more affordable, but becoming obsolete, or needing to be very handy and tech savvy to keep it up and running as the wave of generations keeps moving forward. OS 9 isn't so long ago, but either is Win 98, depending on your perspective!
corposant -- I'm definitely not approaching from a consumer/fun standpoint -- I've got the M4/3 for that.
More like revisiting to see if there is a useful tool I can stay fluent with, or not. The gear is sure attractively priced, but the film and processing (and time lag!) to get to computer is not. I started just to test those Contax N lenses to see if they worked and the prospect of converting to EOS EF mount with electronics. Then bought a second N1 camera body, then a Canon 1N, since I have all these Canon and Alt lenses that would work. Then pulled out the Pentax and Mamiya 6x7 stuff! Yikes! I can't trust myself to dip a toe in for fun -- I'd be robbing banks to support my habit.
If I can't figure how to get the imaging to look the way I want at a reasonable cost, I'll have to start divesting this film gear, maybe keeping the Pentax 67II and Canon 1N, as you say, just for fun.
I appreciate all the help and great examples on this thread!
Seboh, Thanks for comment.
Joanlvh, Thanks for suggestion. Yes, Even Costco can do C-41 BW like BW400CN. I like the sharpness from that film, but the tone is different, it is approaching Digital look, which is not the reason I am using film Tri-X and Tmax on the other hand, are very pleasing to my eyes.
redisburning wrote:
more what?
I don't find your shot lacking in any way, and I certainly don't think the overall look of the image would look better had you taken it on an M9.
Thanks for comment. More resolution, more freedom of post process But I agree the film output surprise me how good it is especially from camera 40 years ago. Get a workable M3/4/6, and put a old 50cron, you are done with it about $1500 and get even better M shooting experience than M9.
corposant -- I shot two more rolls of 120 Ektar 100, testing between Pentax 165/2.8 with Ext. Tubes and without, and the 135/4 Macro I received yesterday. I debated following your suggestion to do the basic scans rather than the enhanced, but finally chose the enhanced. My reasoning was that especially if shooting 120 film, I want to see details, and I do comparisons to pay attention to those details. So, off to North Coast again, asking this time if there is any chance of scanning to TIFF instead of JPG. We'll see in about a week.
Doubling the resolution of the 5D2 would probably be a very interesting camera to me, around 50MP.
